How do discursive cultures influence party positions on Europe, and to what extent do they define borders not to be crossed? As independent variables, strategy and ideology have been both intensively discussed, but mainly distinctly. Little is known about how these two dimensions interact. Paying attention to semantic customs in parliamentary debates, the paper hypothesises that discourse occupies space between strategy and ideology, and frames the interplay between the two. Comparing European endorsements and reactions to them within the French National Assembly, it investigates the room left for federalism over time, from the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam to the ratification of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. From a pre-European Convention atmosphere to the current context of economic crisis, the paper also studies the way French MPs understand France’s role in different contexts. The paper is divided in two different parts. First, it starts with theoretical remarks on political orientations towards the EU and the conceptual need to make a distinction between different kinds of support. Second, based on data collected from key debates within Parliament, the research offers an empirical study combining computer-assisted qualitative analysis using NVivo and lexicometric analyses. The strength of the paper is twofold. Theoretically, Europhilia offers a different perspective on EU positioning than Euroscepticism, and helps us to understand the range of conceptual tools used to classify Eurosceptic attitudes, as well as to what extent they apply to European divergences in general. Empirically, by looking at discourses within Parliament, the research explores a broad source of data, so far underexploited.
